Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Car Accident on Way back to Home California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Car Accident on Way back to Home California

    Hi!

    Salaried employee who regularly works from home is required to come to the office once a week. Yesterday was her required day. On her way back home, she got into a car accident. Is this a worker's comp situation?

    She's threatening to sue.

    Also, while googling, a recent case of Jeewarat vs. Warner Brothers Entertainment came up. How does this (or any other case decisions) apply or not?

    Thanks!

  • #2
    Could be. Why don't you just submit the incident report to your carrier and let them decide. Why is it getting to the "suing" stage already?
    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Among other things, in the case you've cited, the plaintiffs were pedestrians that were hit by a car that was hit by the employee. The question was whether the employer could be added to the lawsuit against the employee and the other driver.
      I am not able to respond to private messages. Thanks!

      Comment


      • #4
        I would submit a report to the carrier & let them decide as Patty noted. It "may not" be a WC injury if she wasn't driving during the course of her "job duties."
        Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

        Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

        Comment


        • #5
          Typically commuting time is not WC. There are some exceptions such as when the ee is performing work duties on the way. She can't sue the employer so she is blowing smoke there. She may or may not be able to collect WC, but I'd submit it to the carrier along with the details of what she was doing at the time (or not doing) and let them handle it.
          I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Posted by those 'pros' in the trenches of WC in Calif...
            Coming and Going Rule (California)
            by [email protected] on Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:47 pm

            I have read the multitude of cases regarding the Coming and Going rule, however, unless I missed something I don't see anything regarding an injury just before an applicant clocks in to work or just after clocking out from work. Assuming the injury before/ after work occurred just outside the premises in an area that is not controlled by the employer - would the injury be AOE/COE? Thanks.
            Re: Coming and Going Rule (California)
            by [email protected] on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:14 pm

            For the most part the answer is no, this activity would not be in the course and scope of employment. However one has to be careful as there are a couple of "left turn" cases where the employment was considered to have "influenced" the employee's activity and compensability was found. You also have to make certain that none of the execptions to the going and coming rule apply such that applicant's employemnt situtation did not begin with the commute.
            Similar circumstance, though nothing in comp is similar.
            IMHO...this is not a compensable claim. The EE was aware of the periodic requirement to present at the office...part of the normal job duties. So I wouldn't imagine this would be outside the norm...and not AOE/COE as in arose of employment, or in the course of performing her job duties.

            I agree with the others...file the claim with your carrier, let them investigate and determine compensability. That's what you pay for.
            At the very most the carrier may do is accept the claim and pay wage loss, and medical with a subrogation lien against the 3rd party carrier to recover their costs. I would doubt they'd even go that far.

            link to the above discussion is here http://forums.workcompcentral.com/vi...93658794#p1099

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lltuser View Post
              Hi!

              Salaried employee who regularly works from home is required to come to the office once a week. Yesterday was her required day. On her way back home, she got into a car accident. Is this a worker's comp situation?

              She's threatening to sue.

              Also, while googling, a recent case of Jeewarat vs. Warner Brothers Entertainment came up. How does this (or any other case decisions) apply or not?

              Thanks!

              Obviously no two cases will ever be the SAME, however in this particular instance things may be a little tricky.

              The PROBLEM is the EE REGULAR work is at HOME and so IF they were at HOME, well then it would be impossible for a car accident to have occurred, HOWEVER the EMPLOYER REQUIRED the EE to LEAVE their NORMAL work environment and come to YOUR location per the EMPLOYERS REQUEST and in the course and scope of the employers request an accident ensued and so, well you can SEE where this becomes a HUGE problem for the employer.

              IF, the EE normal scheduled place of employment was at YOUR office establishment and an accident ensued on the way to or home, then no way would it be a workers comp issue, however BECAUSE the NORMAL work required by the employer was at HOME and the EMPLOYER REQUIRED that come in, EVEN one day a week, that would not be considered a NORMAL commute to and from work.


              I THINK this employee may very well have a workers comp claim for the accident.

              Just my honest opinion.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm still not sure there is a WC claim here. If the employee is required to come into work 1 day a week or 5 days a week, it is still commuting time which is not WC. Many employees work so many days a week at home & so many days a week at work. I would still submit the report to the carrier though.

                (just my opinion) I kind of agree with CAIW.

                The employee's "normal" work week apparently includes 1 day at the office.
                Last edited by Betty3; 12-29-2009, 07:05 PM. Reason: add info
                Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  State law determines whether an accident that occurs during commute time, or lunch, or breaks, is applicable to workers comp. There can be no harm in putting it through to the carrier and letting the carrier make the decision - in fact, I would encourage doing so.

                  But whether it is or is not covered will be a matter of state law, not anyone's opinion.
                  The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cbg View Post
                    State law determines whether an accident that occurs during commute time, or lunch, or breaks, is applicable to workers comp. There can be no harm in putting it through to the carrier and letting the carrier make the decision - in fact, I would encourage doing so.

                    But whether it is or is not covered will be a matter of state law, not anyone's opinion.
                    The PERSON at the STATE level will give THEIR OPINION on how THIS particular issue sits and weighs against STATE LAW, it will boil down to an opinion; of course we here are just surmising what opinion may come into play from what we hear.

                    If OPINIONS weren't welcome here, there would be no need for a message board such as this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Agree though that is all any of us who replied could give was our opinion because we don't know. They have to submit the report to the carrier & see as we all suggested.

                      It's the same as when a poster asks if they will qualify for UI & responders many times give their opinion but then say the "state" has the final decision though. We can't say for sure.

                      add info - I also agree though that responders can carry on too long on opinions when we don't have the final say.

                      (LETC - I was replying to cbg (not you)- your reply wasn't there yet when I started typing mine.)
                      Last edited by Betty3; 12-30-2009, 12:29 PM. Reason: noted word spelled wrong (asks)-typed too fast
                      Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                      Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        LETC, since you feel so strongly that your opinion holds as much weight as that of the state adjudicator, suppose you supply the law that supports your opinion.
                        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          LETC, since you feel so strongly that your opinion holds as much weight as that of the state adjudicator, suppose you supply the law that supports your opinion.

                          CBG, why do you feel the need to attack me in this manner? I would supply you with many conflicting opinions in similar cases that the STATES have decided and ruled on, however as you must already know ( and as I have pointed out many times now) the circumstances of EACH case have their own specific details where each aspect have been weighted to form an opinion by the STATE in which they made a ruling either in favor of the worker/employee or the Insurance carrier.

                          I must point out that you should read what is written well as it is obvious from what your demanding you have not read what I have written . No where have I stated MY OPINION holds as much weight as the STATE
                          ( entity that makes a final ruling on these matters) in contrast what I stated was that there are individuals who will make that determination on the STATE level and it will thus be an OPINION as well based on all the circumstances surrounding THIS specific issue.

                          I am sorry you are offended with my personal opinions, but I am with in my rights stating those as opinions, would you not agree, and please do not quote me as saying something as you did here, as certainly I never stated what you claim at all.

                          Thanks so much.
                          Last edited by LETC; 12-30-2009, 12:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In other words, you have no legal basis for your opinion.

                            What you fail to understand is that most of the other responders have experience with w/c claims and a working knowledge of the laws. If you have such experience you have failed to indicate it.

                            When you express your opinion that something WILL be covered, as you have done here, but cannot provide any legal basis for it, how helpful do you think that is to the poster? The posters are not looking for the opinion of people off the street who have no knowledge of how workers comp claims work or what the law states; they are looking for information about what the law ACTUALLY says and why.

                            While it is an open board to which anyone may respond, it is the reverse of helpful for you to "express your opinion" unless you can back it up with law. This is a legal board for legal information, not a board to spout off whatever happens to be at the top of your head.

                            I'm sorry you feel "attacked" but until or unless you are able to provide a legal basis for the "opinions" you feel compelled to express, I'm asking you not to post. You are not helping the posters by giving them "opinions" that are based on what you think the law is or should be without checking to see if there is any support in the law for your beliefs.
                            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by cbg View Post
                              In other words, you have no legal basis for your opinion.


                              If you have a license to practice LAW, I've not verified such and until I do will not make assumptions about you personally in that regard. I have stated there is a plethora of CASE LAW and examples of similar cases, and there are specific characteristics that make EACH case individual and will have to be weighted accordingly to form an opinion, however having knowledge of such other cases as stated from the beginning THIS particular instance could be tricky, of which I stated is my opinion, which is within the TOS here, and I complied fully with such in stating my opinion.

                              What you fail to understand is that most of the other responders have experience with w/c claims and a working knowledge of the laws. If you have such experience you have failed to indicate it.

                              I have seen no credentials posted. I do not have a failed understanding in contrast to your OWN personal opinion

                              When you express your opinion that something WILL be covered, as you have done here, but cannot provide any legal basis for it, how helpful do you think that is to the poster? The posters are not looking for the opinion of people off the street who have no knowledge of how workers comp claims work or what the law states; they are looking for information about what the law ACTUALLY says and why.


                              Here is where you have again not read thoroughly, never did I state that this workers comp claim WILL be covered, in FACT I stated it was my opinion that it MAY be covered under a workers comp claim, huge difference,but you need to read carefully before asserting and quoting things I have not stated as fact.

                              While it is an open board to which anyone may respond, it is the reverse of helpful for you to "express your opinion" unless you can back it up with law. This is a legal board for legal information, not a board to spout off whatever happens to be at the top of your head.

                              So you assume this knowledge is spouted off the top of my head, yet I see no one backing their assertions or opinions with CASE LAW or links specifically and as you must know already no TWO cases are ever alike, and no one can give a final ruling as to HOW the LAW will decide a certain case until all the facts are TRIED either by a mediation or a jury trial, if it needed to go that far.

                              I'm sorry you feel "attacked" but until or unless you are able to provide a legal basis for the "opinions" you feel compelled to express, I'm asking you not to post. You are not helping the posters by giving them "opinions" that are based on what you think the law is or should be without checking to see if there is any support in the law for your beliefs.
                              It is clear that you attack me in your own special way at every opportunity I need not defend that aspect its all written and documented here. As for what you demand again, unless you require EACH poster here who offers an opinion to back it by examples of specific CASE LAW relating to same. There is MUCH case LAW and examples of same that I based my opinions on and I specified that the employer MAY be liable, same as other posters answering that they may or may not be liable, clearly you have an issue with my posting here and appears you are more concerned about arguing then researching or reading posters responses and jumping the gun based on your disconnect with me .


                              I hope you have a wonderful new year.
                              Last edited by LETC; 12-30-2009, 01:45 PM.

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X